Friday, February 26, 2010

This is his reply to my questions marked in red and my counter reply to his reply is below this post after which he never replied back as he did not have the guts to face the queries again. Pls read the whole post and decide it for yourself that who has won this debate by posting your comments. It is abit long but if you go continuously then it won’t take more than 10-20 minutes.

Hello Shekhar or Suresh or whatever your name is. Please see my replies in bold below. Good that you stood up for what you believed in. And thanks a lot for writing. Your letter is gold. Pure gold. That’s why I put it on my blog.

But having said that, let me say, I’ve never in my life read a more ignorant piece of shit as your letter. The only reason I’m replying to this is because I pity your ignorance.

Excuse me sir,Yes?I saw that you are a part of a rationalist group in Facebook.

I assume you spend a lot of time there.

Hence, I would like to ask you a few questions.

Shoot.

I know that it is abit long but if you can make out time then I am sure that you can atleast answer the first questions.I can assure you, I’m more than capable of answering ALL your questions.Hence, I would like to ask you five questions:Firstly, you guys are too hyper on just one field.

I deny that accusation! We are hyper on ALL fields!

When it comes to what superstitious or not then you only show your daring, excitement and manhood towards those religion but do you have the courage to challenge those theories in science which have are not proven and have been accepted as postulates?

Have you heard that Pluto is no longer a planet?

I repeat….DO YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO CHALLENGE THOSE THEORIES AND FORMULAE IN SCIENCE WHICH ARE NOT PROVEN BUT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS POSTULATES? ANSWER THIS IF U HAVE THE GUTS!!!!!!HAVE YOU HEARD THAT PLUTO IS NO LONGER A PLANET!!? For e.g. uniform circular motion, elastic force, kinetic friction and some of Newton and Einstein’s theories have not been proved and there is not a single evidence for them. However, they have been added in science books with great respect.

How many books have you read? I mean apart from those NCERT textbooks full of badly drawn pictures of village kids shitting in open fields.

On the contary, theories like rebirth still have some observation evidences but still have not been accepted in the scientific field.

You’ve gotta be kidding me! Rebirth!?

So, why don’t you south Indians show manhood, courage, heroism, adventurous attitude and excitement in those Newton, Einstein and other scientific theories which do not have a single evidence but still have been accepted as postulates in the scientific fields? DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO THAT? WHY SINGLE OUT SUCH OBVIOUS AND WEAK CASES LIKE REBIRTH ETC.? FOOLISH COWARDS!

We live in the age of machines and automation – planes, trains & automobiles, cranes, hydraulic presses, which have all been built on the basis of laws formulated by Newton and Einstein – I’ll be lucky if in my lifetime I become half the man any of them was. The mere fact that these machines exist and work is proof enough that these laws are true. Look around you. The evidence is everywhere. But you would rather believe your grandfather now lives in a cat.

If you have guts then can you give a concrete evidence (weather emperical or derivative) for Newton’s gravitational formula [F= G*(m1*m2)/R^2] before pointing finger against those superstitious beliefs? Pls keep in mind that masses of planets were found out using this unporoven formula only so that can’t be taken as a bases for proving this formula. These guys (Einstein and Newton) minted a lot of money and fame with these type of formulae which were unproven but were patented and accepted by scientists. You being a scientist must have read these formulae and perhaps accepted them also.

What retard told you they are unproven!? There is proof, alright!? There is plenty proof! Go ask anyone with a decent knowledge of physics. Just because you’re too stupid to understand it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong! And that’s the beauty of science. A religious leader can just stand up and declare whatever he wants and scare the shit out of people by telling them that if they don’t listen to him, there is this hermaphrodite spaceman up there who will burn them for a million years in a place called hell. He can get away with saying complete horseshit and nobody dares speak! But not scientists. When a scientist makes a claim, the first reaction of anybody is – skepticism. That is just how the scientific mind is conditioned. We do not accept anything without proof. A scientist has to work his ass off in order to make himself heard. It’s not that easy to get the Nobel Prize.

Why didn’t you go and protest against them?Because we don’t want to look like idiots!Secondly, you are completely, practical.

And yet, here I am, with you. Please continue.

Hence, I would like to ask you one thing. Do you think that is it “scientifically impossible” to transpose one thing to another without physically moving it? Is it true that such transporting of a object is scientifically not possible? Pls do reply if you really have guts.My honest answer to that is… “I don’t know”. When I don’t know something, I admit it. I do not make some shit up and say, “Whoever does not believe this is an infidel!” Check Wikipedia or howstuffworks.com or howshithappens.com or something.Thirdly, if there is less evidences or no evidences of rebirth etc. does happen then I suppose that you also do not have enough evidences or no evidences that rebirth etc. does not happen. What have you got to say about this?

Yesterday evening, I was walking home and I met a talking frog who told me that the world will indeed come to an end in 2012. He said his name was Leapy Frogspawn. In fact, that frog is a close friend of Amanda Peet and he actually has a role in the movie that was edited out and can be seen in the DVD extras. But he sounded pretty sure and convinced me that the world is indeed coming to an end. Now, I don’t have evidence to support this. I tried taking a video of it on my cell phone cam but the clever little turd disappeared. Now it’s quite evident that I don’t have evidence. But you don’t have any evidence that this did not happen. So have to believe me. What have you got to say about this?Fourthly, there are many things which happen in this world by people which are not superstitious but are irrational. For e.g. a man may give some heavy amount to a departmental store without even checking that the product or service which he is getting from that store is worth that amount or not.

Then he got ripped off. What’s your point?

Another e.g. is that the people give taxes to the government irrationally without bothering that what the government does for them. On the contary people working more are earning very less than them.

Many government rules have been laid down without giving any reason. For e.g. the import duty on one substance should be 35% but why it is 35% and why not 30% or 40% has not been told. Isn’t this an irrational act?

I’m not even gonna comment on that one.Also, many textbooks and books have also been written without applying any rational approach i.e. things have been explained with refernece to what the reader does not know that too. For e.g. if you arrive at the railway station in my country India and it’s capital Delhi and ask where is India Gate as you are new to Delhi and know nothing about it, the person whom ask gives a reply that it is infront of Presidential palace. However, you do not know that where Presidential palace is either. Instead he should have told with that context that go from HERE to left and then right and so on because HERE is what you presently know.

Well then ask him to say so he can go back to living his life!The same happens with books. You ask that what is surface tension and they tell you that it happens with cohesion. However, you do not know what is cohesion either. If they however tell you that cohesion is attraction of like molecules to like molecules then you would not understand that what is attraction of like molecules to like molecules.

Someone so stupid that he can’t even understand the simple concept of cohesion? Who is this guy, Forrest Gump? Not that I’m comparing you to Forrest Gump. One is a retard with extremely low IQ. The other is Forrest Gump.

Also, there are on many ocassions very less information given that a different meaning may be derived by the statement, for e.g. they may tell you to go left and you may goto your left rather than his what he really meant.

Then clarify that simple bit of information, can’t you!?

Same is with books. They are edited in such manner with incomplete information that a different meaning is derived. For e.g. in Class 12 physics (Chapter Electric Forces pages 17 and 18 or so and e.g. 1.7) of NCERT (If you type NCERT electric forces in Google or yahoo search then you will come to know) many steps are missing while explaining the force on equilateral triangle. They did not mention that you have to do it with vector algebra also when vector algebra was nowhere mentioned before. So, it was quite rational that they should have explained it step by step but they haven’t. The same is with American courses like CCNA as they start explaining that how IP address is received or intercepted rather than explaining that how can an electric signal carry an IP address.

Trust me, CCNA is way too advanced for you.The biggest example of irrationalism is that the Central Board Of Secondary Education (CBSE) does not give back the photocopy of the answer scripts till today when so much technological development has taken place even in colour videography. Candidates tend to loose marks due to the irrational behavior of the evaluators and on the other hand are expected to score more than 80 to 90 percent in their papers. All other western countries as far as I know have the right to ask for photocopies of their answer scripts.So, why don’t you go and challenge these irrational acts first?Sue those bastards!

Fifthly and lastly, if you claim to be so intelligent, then why don’t you use it for yourself and become rich?

Yes. Yes! I’m trying to become rich and famous and buy fast cars and have supermodels sleep with me, but pricks like you keep interrupting me all the time!

If you really have guts and you act with reason then you would reply back else like foolish coward you would prove yourself to be one and also for the remaining other fools who can show their daring and excitement just in one place.

You are…

1.1. Talking out of your ass

2.2. Not showing your face

So I think the jury is in on who’s the “foolish coward” over here is.

Thank you.I hope that you would reply ASAP but the remaining is upto you and if you do not reply then I got nothing to loose.

You got that last bit right.

This is a message sent to many people who claim to be rationalists. My e-mail is in your reply button but if you are not able to read then here are my e-mail addresses XXXXXXXXXXXX@yahoo.co.in.

However, it is upto you to reply or not or completely ignore this message or/and block and report my profile. It does not affect me.

When you say you’re not giving a damn, you ARE giving a damn.

Listen here, kid. You are way too young and naïve to mess around with rationalists. You’re just too young and have a lot to learn and totally sound like a kid. Have you even learnt how to masturbate yet? You have a looooooong way to go before you can even BEGIN to approach a rationalist. Trust me, we people are bad-ass and will pulverize anyone who dares disrespect science.

This battle has been going on for thousands of years and science has always won and religion has suffered nothing but humiliating defeats again and again and again. Religion is just a convenient lie. When people say they favor religion over science, what they’re in fact saying is, “We give up. Our brains haven’t evolved to that level yet. This whole shit about gravity and molecular attraction and genetics and evolution is way too advanced for us, so we’ll just stick to the same folk tales that Neanderthal food gatherers made up in their attempts to demystify the wonderful world around us.”

So log off and get to your books and study! You can start with English because you spellings are horrible and your grammar sucks! I clicked on MS-Word spell check and my processor almost burned out.

And yeah, real smart move leaving your e-mail for all to see. I’ve XXXed it over here, but I know who you are where you live and where you work and I even know what you look like. And as if that’s not enough, you’ve even left your initials to confirm your identity. Have a nice day.

Posted by Ahmed Shariff

MY COUNTER-REPLY TO THE ABOVE

TO ANY JUDGES OR OTHERS IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THIS THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS IS VERY LONG THAN THIS GUY WHO CLAIMS TO BE A RATIONALIST REPLIED.SO PLZ BE PATIENT AND IF YOU FIND IT LENGTHY THEN PLS READ IT IN PARTS.HOWEVER, I ASSURE YOU THAT IT WON’T TAKE MORE THAN TEN MINUTES TO READ THE WHOLE POST.AFTER ALL, WE DO READ LONGER TEXTS THAN THIS FOR OUR LAW EXAMS, ETC. AND COURT JUDGMENTS ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THIS BUT STILL WE DO READ THEM, DON’T WE?

IT IS IN COMPARISON TO THE LOOOONG WAY BEFORE I EVEN APPROACH GUYS LIKE HIM!! LOL!

SO HERE IS MY REPLY TO THE MAIL ABOVE WHICH HE SENT ME. (MY POSTS ARE INREDAS THIS BLOG DOES HAVE THOSE FEATURES).

Pls go through the letter sent to you by me on February 1 for reference. You replied me back and this is a counter reply to that.

I have replied to that letter of yours. What do you think that your petty points would make me run away? It motivated me to write more. IF YOU HAVE GUTS THEN ANSWER THEM. I have few points to say before which I think that you should read before you start reading the reply. I have answered to all your points and it may be larger than that. You may be finding difficulty in answering to all the points as it is large and earlier you had replied back in a much shorter letter. Either you answer to all my points likewise OR YOU ACCEPT YOUR DEFEAT AGAINST ME that you are rationalist JUST BY NAME and not by actions. YOUR NON-REPLY WOULD ALSO AMOUNT TO YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF DEFEAT. If you are defeated then you are accepting that:

1. You guys are hyper in just one field. You cannot show your manhood, daring and excitement towards proving or disproving those postulates in science, changing those irrational government rules and irrational human behavior like committing suicide when the chief minister dies in the chopper crash or the judge giving decision out of prejudice. You guys can just find weak and obvious cases like religion as a soft target and this is all that you can show daring on and hence you are nothing but a foolish coward.

2. Postulates in science do exist and so must the religious postulates. Even in science there are many things which are unproved. Hence, postulates can exist elsewhere also.

3. You people are narrow-minded also as you just believe in just believing or disbelieving and not on the third option of neither believing nor disbelieving but investigating the theory further.

4. You do not have the balls to change the irrational government rules and the government system or the actions of the judges of the court by giving decision out of prejudice and so you can show your manhood only towards religion.

5. It may also be possible that you are IGNORANT enough to not to know much about what else is irrational other than superstitious beliefs in this world. Therefore, the judge of this debate can decide for himself that who is ignorant amongst us.

6. You do not know anything great about science and weather it’s theories are proved or disproved and you do not have the balls to understand the basics of science.

7. In the end, you also do not have debating power because if you do have then you should have surely replied me back with your points. So, who amongst us has shortest IQ can also be decided by the judge of this debate and who is foolish than a Forrest Gump.

So, decide it for yourself that what you want to become. If you want to show that you are a foolish coward then you may not reply back again. Also, remember that I may send this message again next time with my blog’s address probably the same where you posted my previous letter’s reply challenging you to come and answer my points so that all others can also see like you did it with my previous letter. So, if you won’t reply back then the people viewing that letter will come to know that who is ignorant, foolish, coward and irrational to not have any debating power.

Therefore, IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF TO THOSE PEOPLE IN THE BLOG, you better answer to each and every point. I am saying this because in few questions you missed out completely in answering and in one question you refused to even comment.

Since Facebook doesn’t have editing icons like bold, underline etc. (THIS BLOG HAS THIS FEATURE so this sentence is of hardly any use) I have put your replies in inverted commas (“) and infront of that REPLY and my counter-replies as COUNTER REPLY. Example is this below from where it starts.

REPLY – “Hello Shekhar or Suresh or whatever your name is. Please see my replies in bold below. Good that you stood up for what you believed in. And thanks a lot for writing. Your letter is gold. Pure gold. That’s why I put it on my blog.”

COUNTER-REPLY –

1. Hello Mr. Ahmed Shariff (Am I right?) which seems to be a probable name or if I am wrong then whatever your name is.

2. Your replies are bolder in font but not in meaning. LOL!

3. Thanks for listening and replying also. Thank you for appreciating my letter and your reply is also very good that it is a playground for me in debating.

4. I may give you some hyperlinks and you may put it on blog again so I will separate the h t t p etc so that they can be uploaded in blog also.

5. It is good because I believe that a third party should decide that amongst the both of us whose debate is stronger as none of us may accept our mistakes or loss. You have heard the famous saying,”Chorr kabhi nahi kehta hai ki usne chori ki hai”. I am getting someone competent to decide that whose debate amongst us is worthier.

REPLY – “But having said that, let me say, I’ve never in my life read a more ignorant piece of shit as your letter. The only reason I’m replying to this is because I pity your ignorance. “

COUNTER REPLY –

1. Then you are the biggest alive ignorant because the most ignorant is the person lying in coma or a new born infant.

2. If someone is looking at this and deciding that whose debate is more worthier then I would remind him/her that this guy has not backed up his claim as to how I am ignorant and he should have given concrete examples like you said there is no proof for this theory but there is and here is the proof.

3. I will come to this later on where he has not replied accurately for you and I to understand that how there was any proof.

REPLY – “Yes?”

COUNTER REPLY -Thanks for listening.

REPLY – “I assume you spend a lot of time there.”

COUNTER REPLY –That is why that I have sent you a long letter unlike you have sent me a shorter one with very less details.

REPLY – “Shoot.”

COUNTER REPLY –Ok, so I did present my questions.

REPLY – “I can assure you, I’m more than capable of answering ALL your questions.”

COUNTER REPLY –Is that so? Well let’s see that how much capable are you in answering the questions.

REPLY – “I deny that accusation! We are hyper on ALL fields!

COUNTER REPLY -We will see that too that weather your denial had a genuine reason or was it a baseless one.

REPLY – “Have you heard that Pluto is no longer a planet?”

COUNTER REPLY -Yes, but what has Pluto got to do with that question? Was Pluto being a planet a postulate?

Even if it was then:

1. Why was it accepted by scientists and why did you all read it when it was taught to you in classrooms? You being a rationalist, why did you not ask for proof of Pluto being a planet?

2. What about the money and fame minted by it’s discoverer and the losses which we incurred in assuming that it was a planet? Why did you not write something in your Facebook site about such postulates?

3. Why did you all rationalists not file an application that no further postulates should be accepted by science as Pluto being a planet was disproved?

Giving incomplete information for the debate proves how rational you are.

REPLY – “HAVE YOU HEARD THAT PLUTO IS NO LONGER A PLANET!!?“

COUNTER REPLY -WHAT HAS PLUTO GOT TO DO WITH THAT QUESTION? WAS PLUTO BEING A PLANET A POSTULATE? PLS SEE THE ABOVE DETAILS ALSO.

REPLY – “How many books have you read? I mean apart from those NCERT textbooks full of badly drawn pictures of village kids shitting in open fields.”

COUNTER REPLY -

1. I suppose that you must have read those books. If that is so since you are commenting on it then why you did not protest on its writings to the authorities as you claim to be a rationalist?

2. I have not just read books but e-books also. If you do not believe in NCERT and then pls goto this your own wikipedia site which you were blabbing about. Here also you will find postulates. The formulae accepted as postulates are marked in green.

THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT. Give as much relevant information and REFERENCES as bases for your debate so that your points look MORE REAL AND CONVINCING. Your whole reply did NOT EVEN HAVE ONE reference other than the Pluto one and that too without any much detail and further website as to how it relates to your answer.

REPLY – “You’ve gotta be kidding me! Rebirth!?”

COUNTER REPLY –

1. Actually, I just came across few empirical evidences were birthmarks were identical to the alleged previous lives marks.

2. They cannot be created by some trick and no medical facility is available till today which can create these birthmarks.

3. The only debate from your side is that it can only be a co-incidence and believe me that it is a very rare co-incidence.

4. ATLEAST THIS IS WORTH INVESTIGATING. However, guys like you reach to a conclusion very soon.

REPLY – “We live in the age of machines and automation – planes, trains & automobiles, cranes, hydraulic presses, which have all been built on the basis of laws formulated by Newton and Einstein – I’ll be lucky if in my lifetime I become half the man any of them was. The mere fact that these machines exist and work is proof enough that these laws are true. Look around you. The evidence is everywhere. But you would rather believe your grandfather now lives in a cat.”

COUNTER REPLY -

1. If there is evidence then why you are not showing it to me? If the machine working is a proof but you do not tell me in detail that how is the working of this machine related to the proof of these alleged postulated formulae by me, then I will also claim that the rebirth is also true and proven enough as the children speak extra-ordinary about their previous lives.

a. If you doubt on that then I can also doubt on the machine working as we all have seen that how Mr. P.C. Sorcar did tricks to make things move etc. so these machines must be moving in that way.

2. I did not ask and neither was the topic of debate that what you wanted to become. The evidence is there but it is not sufficient to become evident. Just by looking you may think that I have to believe you? In that case, in the movie “Qatl” Sanjeev Kumar really murdered his wife if looking was sufficient.

3. MAY I REMIND YOU THAT NO MACHINE WORKS ON EINSTEIN’S POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND NEWTON’S GRAVITATIONAL LAW. If there is any machine then you NAME THAT MACHINE! And if you still believe that I am thinking about my grandfather, then you pls go through this website http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity for this.

By the way, for your information both my paternal and maternal grandfathers are healthy both physically and mentally. I did not understand that what you meant by telling me that where my grandfather lives.

REPLY – “What retard told you they are unproven!? There is proof, alright!? There is plenty proof! Go ask anyone with a decent knowledge of physics. Just because you’re too stupid to understand it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong! And that’s the beauty of science. A religious leader can just stand up and declare whatever he wants and scare the shit out of people by telling them that if they don’t listen to him, there is this hermaphrodite spaceman up there who will burn them for a million years in a place called hell. He can get away with saying complete horseshit and nobody dares speak! But not scientists. When a scientist makes a claim, the first reaction of anybody is – skepticism. That is just how the scientific mind is conditioned. We do not accept anything without proof. A scientist has to work his ass off in order to make himself heard. It’s not that easy to get the Nobel Prize.”

COUNTER REPLY -

1. Great professors and scientists who edited Wikipedia have said that. If there is proof then you show it to me. Just by saying it that there is enough of evidence it does not conclude the same.

2. You are telling me to ask someone who knows and that means that you are yourself not sure that weather this is evident or not. You claim to be rationalist through an organization and protests and you did not bother to check whether these physics formulae are proven or not.

a. If you were sure that this had any proof then you would have given the proof yourself rather than telling me to ask someone else who has the knowledge.

3. If you think that I am stupid, then pls assume that you are not proving it to me and try explaining or clarifying it to someone who is intelligent for e.g. the judge who will be deciding our debate.

4. If you know so much about the beauty of science then why you did not prove that formulae yourself to me?

5. Did I even talk about the leaders and what they are saying which you are commenting about completely off-topic? The topic of the debate was that why you don’t show your daring and excitement in other fields also and not what those leaders and scientists say.

6. If that is so then pls go through one more site (When you claim that you have such a reaction) It was initially that (as typed on that site) HE MADE IT UP:

Here Einstein’s e=m*(c^2) has been accepted without proof. Though later it was found out to be partially true but now there are many doubts on it’s perfect validity in several conditions. Here are more references to support my point.

And again, why did you all accept it and learn it in classrooms? Why did you and they not ask for sufficient proof for these formulae?

Why did you not protest against the patent laws that no further postulates like this should be accepted by scientists and those postulates which are already there should be either proved or disproved by certain means?

It was largely a guess rather than deductive reasoning and thus he also said it the same way as the leader. So did a scientist. Therefore, this is the claim you are talking about?

7. You did NOT give EVEN ONE site which could prove the Newton’s law of gravitation (F=G*m1*m2/r^2). So, this is how your mind is conditioned? You do not accept anything without proof and do not accept anything with proof also. I accept only those things that can be proved and partially accept and investigate those things which have not been disproved but still have some evidence though they are not sufficient.

8. Ofcourse, he must be working like anything but that was not the debate of topic and again you are going off-topic. Again yes, it is difficult to get that prize but that was not the topic of debate and that proves nothing. Also, during Newton’s time there were not any Nobel Prizes.

REPLY – “Because we don’t want to look like idiots!’

COUNTER REPLY -And that is further because that you are already a fool from inside so you need not look like one.

REPLY – “And yet, here I am, with you. Please continue.”

COUNTER REPLY -Therefore, you accept that you are completely practical also.

REPLY – “My honest answer to that is… “I don’t know”. When I don’t know something, I admit it. I do not make some shit up and say, “Whoever does not believe this is an infidel!” Check Wikipedia or howstuffworks.com or howshithappens.com or something.”

COUNTER REPLY -

1. I think that you did not even understand the question. I will rephrase it. Supposing a man disappears in one area and then split second later he appears 500 Kms away from where he disappeared. This is probably that is shown in mythological serials like the famous Ramayana. Do you think that this is in ANY WAY possible in present or future with any matter?

2. We will see that you really admit it or not since you claimed that you can answer all my questions.

3. However, you said something like whoever does not believe this is stupid and you did not give any proof from your side.

4. I need not go to those sites as you probably misunderstood the question itself.

REPLY – “Yesterday evening, I was walking home and I met a talking frog who told me that the world will indeed come to an end in 2012. He said his name was Leapy Frogspawn. In fact, that frog is a close friend of Amanda Peet and he actually has a role in the movie that was edited out and can be seen in the DVD extras. But he sounded pretty sure and convinced me that the world is indeed coming to an end. Now, I don’t have evidence to support this. I tried taking a video of it on my cell phone cam but the clever little turd disappeared. Now it’s quite evident that I don’t have evidence. But you don’t have any evidence that this did not happen. So have to believe me. What have you got to say about this?”

COUNTER REPLY -

1. I have myself seen the movie 2012 and about the 2012 phenomena and the Maya Civilization. It seems that you disbelieve that too completely. I will comment on your whole story later on by giving another story of mine. Meanwhile, neither do I believe in 2012 phenomena nor do I disbelieve it. It may be possible that the world may end completely, may partially bring a considerable or minor destruction to the world, or EVEN NOT END AT ALL and neither any destruction would take place.

2. Since, if I did not have any evidence you would have straight away disbelieved me. For example, I am in a lobby of a building in a sofa watching a movie. Imagine that you are sitting behind me enjoying your favorite dish. Also imagine that suddenly, a parrot nearby starts saying “quake quake”, the fishes in the aquarium start to behave strangely by moving all over the aquarium and the dog starts barking and trying to run out. The cleaner of the building says that last time the earthquake came then this is what happened and the parrot said those same words. You say your favorite dialogue, “If there is no evidence for the same then I would not believe you at all” and you were not aware that the strange things were happening since it is already imagined you were enjoying your favorite dish. I say, “There is nothing to lose if we all go outside for few minutes just for caution because neither do I believe it or disbelieve it”. If nothing happens then we will come back or moreover let me switch to that channel after going out in the outdoor television to know that weather any earthquake has taken place or we can dial up the toll-free geology department to find that has there any destruction taken place. However, for you, there are only two options which your mind can give that is believing or disbelieving and there is no third option for narrow-minded people like you so you prefer to stay inside since according to you this is not going to happen as it is not proved. Then after we go outside the earthquake comes making the building collapse and you get crushed. WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS?

3. As far as your story goes, I would neither believe nor disbelieve you but investigate the truth of this story further. This is the option I would choose rather than your option of just believing or disbelieving. This is what I got to say about this. I would investigate on these points:

a. Firstly, are you going to gain something out of giving false and imaginary stories?

b. Secondly, where were you that evening really and if you were going home then from which way you went home?

c. Thirdly, who else were walking on that way to home and if someone was walking on that way then they also should have seen that and did you tell anyone about your alleged incident? If no, then why and if yes then who?

d. Fourthly, the alleged frog’s footprints are still available there or not if it is then can we see that?

e. Fifthly, the alleged frog must have shredded some skin while being there and can that be taken for DNA analysis?

f. Sixthly, why did the alleged frog spoke only to you and did the alleged frog spoke to someone else anywhere in the world?

g. Seventhly, if the alleged frog is a close friend of Amanda Peet, then she must know about it and we need to ask her, and if he has a role in the movies then we need to ask the director about that too.

i. I did see 2012 movie and Amanda Peet. They came to this conclusion only after the predictions made by Maya Civilization matched with the actual happenings in the world partially or completely. The end of world may also match partially, completely or not match at all.

h. Eighthly, even if the scene was edited out, the original DVD is always available somewhere for future entertainment showing which scenes in movies were edited out. We can go through those scenes as you said that your alleged frog had a role in that movie which was edited out.

i. Ninthly and Lastly, and the most effective one which we can do, is to conduct a lie detector test on you AND THAT TOO WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE so that you may not be prepared to deceive it. It means that your body temperature, blood pressure, brain activity will be monitored and verified without your knowledge through wireless systems while we question you about that alleged incident.

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS? ROFL! LOL!

REPLY – “Then he got ripped off. What’s your point?”

COUNTER REPLY –

1. Do I need to tell you my point?

2. Is rationality just about joining an organization and showing your manhood by just pointing fingers on superstitious beliefs?

3. If you were a rationalist then you would have definitely protested and tried to educate the consumers to be rational while they purchase articles or services from any store which nowadays very few consumers do because majority of them want to save time.

THAT 3 IS MY POINT which you should have known it by yourself if you were a rationalist.

REPLY – “I’m not even gonna comment on that one.”

COUNTER REPLY –

THERE YOU ARE! THERE YOU ARE! THERE YOU ARE!

May I remind you that what you typed a few minutes ago before you this.

“I can assure you, I’m more than capable of answering ALL your questions.”

AND

“I deny that accusation! We are hyper on ALL fields!”

AND

“When I don’t know something, I admit it.”

1. THEN WHY DIDN’T YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION? Did you lose your balls while reading that question?

2. Therefore, I am almost sure that the judge of this debate must have reached to a conclusion that the denial of that accusation by you was completely baseless.

3. Why did you not admit the fact that you may not be able to answer all my questions? Isn’t this is an irrational act of making any government rule without giving any reason?

4. Furthermore, is this not a behavior of a foolish coward who blabs all over the net announcing to the users that he is a rationalist but can show his daring only towards superstitious beliefs and not on postulates by science and those rules made by government without giving any sufficient reason?

Did you not have the guts to answer that question?

By not answering this question, are you not proving the fact that you are a foolish coward who can show his daring only towards superstitious beliefs and not on government rules etc.?

If you do not have the guts and you accept the fact that you are a foolish coward who just joins an organization to call himself a rationalist and thus can show his manhood just by criticizing superstitious beliefs and not those government rules which are enacted without giving any sufficient reasons then you may not answer the question. YOU MAY NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION IF YOU ARE A FOOLISH COWARD!

REPLY – “Well then ask him to say so he can go back to living his life!”

COUNTER REPLY –

1. This was just an example. This incident was not real but imagined just for your clarification of the drawbacks of the books and what is edited in it.

2. If you are a rationalist then you should go and protest against the way these books are edited.

3. Since you are saying that I should ask the guy to tell me that where from here I should go and not that to which place is India gate closer to you are also accepting the fact that this type of clarification is the best.

4. However, this type of clarification is not available in textbooks and since you must have read them while you did your schooling then you should have protested against them as you were a rationalist. Atleast, now you should go and protest against the way the clarification has been given since you are a rationalist!!

REPLY – “Someone so stupid that he can’t even understand the simple concept of cohesion? Who is this guy, Forrest Gump? Not that I’m comparing you to Forrest Gump. One is a retard with extremely low IQ. The other is Forrest Gump.”

COUNTER REPLY –

1. Oh, so you were intelligent enough to understand the proof of Newton’s law of gravitation?

2. For your information, I have done well in geometry and trigonometry and a Forrest Gump as far as I am aware cannot do this.

3. If you think that I am stupid enough then do not clarify the cohesion to me but to the judge or judges who will decide this debate.

4. There are many people here who have read about cohesion but have not understood the concept till today. However, they have an extremely high IQ and if you do not believe me then you can take my own IQ test. It will be better and definitely more than that of a Forrest Gump of yours.

5. By the way, my point was not about understanding the concept but the way it was clarified and presented. Again you are answering off-topic which proves that how rational you are.

REPLY – “Then clarify that simple bit of information, can’t you!?”

COUNTER REPLY –

1. AGAIN, this was just an example. This incident was not real but imagined just for your clarification of the drawbacks of the books and what is edited in it.

2. If you are a rationalist then you should go and protest against the way these books are edited.

3. Since you are saying that the point should be clear then you are accepting the fact that each and every step should be explained by giving as much comprehensive information as possible.

4. However, this type of clarification is not available in textbooks and since you must have read them while you did your schooling then you should have protested against them as you were a rationalist. Atleast, now you should go and protest against the way the clarification has been given since you claim to be a rationalist!!

REPLY – “Trust me, CCNA is way too advanced for you.”

COUNTER REPLY –

1. The above details about the textbooks have been completely been ignored by you. Though I do not want to stress on that point again, I just want to remind you that you have yourself claimed that you can answer all my questions and even more than that, but you have missed out completely in answering a few questions here only.

2. Let me say again that as you claim that you are a rationalist and that in above question you answered which proved that you accepted the point that each and every point should be clarified, you should go and protest against the way the clarification has been in that textbook where vector was explained given since you claim to be a rationalist!

As far as CCNA goes, yes it is advanced. So, you tell me that what I should read first before starting that. However, pls be sure to give each and every step which requires prior understanding before reaching CCNA. And if that understanding also requires some prior understanding then do tell me that also. However, you can assume that I know simple English and basic concepts of physics.

REPLY – “Sue those bastards!”

COUNTER REPLY -You claim that you are a rationalist. Do you think that suing is a solution? This answer is complete nonsense as:

1. CBSE has expressly mentioned a rule in it’s revaluation application that no part of work done by the candidate will be re-evaluated again if it has already been marked.

a. The court may not even admit the case and even if they do then also we are likely to lose the case.

b. You do not even know about legal court proceedings and you claim to be a rationalist? HAHAHA! ROFL!

2. When you commented about the NCERT book, then it seems that you have done most probably through CBSE and even if you have not, then also there are only two main boards in this country and they are the ICSE and CBSE. Both of them do not have the facility of providing photocopy answer scripts. There are other state boards but they also as far as I am aware they too do not have this facility of providing photocopy of answer scripts.

a. WHY DID YOU NOT GO AND PROTEST AGAINST THESE RULES WHEN YOU WERE STUDYING UNDER ANY OF THESE BOARDS IF YOU CLAIM TO BE A RATIONALIST? Why did you accept this irrational rule and studied and gave exams under that board? Atleast, now you should go and protest against the rules since you claim to be a rationalist! Are you going to eternally wait for this?

b. If these things are rational, then what these religious people are doing is also rational as you are baselessly assuming that the evaluator is not affected by any prejudice. YOU GET IT? IF THESE THINGS ARE RATIONAL, THEN WHAT THESE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE DOING IS ALSO RATIONAL!!!!!!!!

3. I am not the one who goes around blabbing that, “I am a rationalist and I am a rationalist”, on net or television and be a part of organization.

a. So, you should not tell me to sue them but rather you should have done it yourself.

b. If I claim to be a rationalist and have opened or joined an organization which supports the same then either I do it with as many areas as I can to rationalize them rather than just pointing fingers on superstitious beliefs or I do not do it at all. I do not show my manhood in just one area like superstitious beliefs.

c. So it should be you if you claim to be a rationalist, that you should have gone and protested against that board yourself or sued them or whatever you thought was right because when you talk about suing them, you are also accepting the fact that the rule made by them is wrong.

4. If you were a rationalist, then you would have at least advised me that as many students as possible studying under that board should have stop paying the school or institution fees and refuse to study or go to the school or institution unless the board makes an amendment in it’s rules by providing photocopy of the answer scripts. You gave a very unreasonable answer. Suing them is the craziest idea which you have advised and after embarrassingly loosing the case which would be there as a result of your advice, we would only make a fool out of ourselves.

5. By using that derogatory word, you have proved that being excessively practical makes you degrade yourself and lose your self-respect also.

6. Another big irrationalism is that government which you are living in and supporting is democratic for an undeveloped nation and this is the biggest irrationalism.

a. If you did not support democracy then you would have said something about it in your homepage in Facebook. Dictatorship is the best government especially for an undeveloped nation.

b. Population increase is another irrational behavior and to not control it by coercive measures by enacting a law is even more irrational. Why did you not show hyper attitude in these areas apart from showing your manhood on superstitious beliefs?

7. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND CONVINCING ONE! Many court cases have been decided due to media pressure and suspects were convicted largely due to just circumstantial evidence (which would be enough even to even prove rebirth as rebirth also just has circumstantial evidence).

a. If you had been reading newspapers and listening to news channel then you must have heard about those cases.

b. I need not specify them but if you still claim that you do not know despite your claim that you are a rationalist then pls do inform me and I will tell you about those famous court cases where suspects were convicted due to circumstantial evidence and media pressure.

c. So, why did you not go and protest against these court decisions that they were given out of prejudice of court due to media pressure if you claim to be a rationalist and you are a member of an organization?

d. If court decision on serious cases which the media covers are mainly due to circumstantial evidence and moreover on prejudice, then cases like rebirth etc. also have many circumstantial evidence and thus they also should be accepted if you are not protesting against these court decisions. You get it? If you are not protesting against these court decisions then you have no right to point fingers against rebirth etc. also.

REPLY – “Yes. Yes! I’m trying to become rich and famous and buy fast cars and have supermodels sleep with me, but pricks like you keep interrupting me all the time!”

COUNTER REPLY – Well then you have one more option of not giving me attention if you are busy and as soon as you are free then I would shoot those questions on you. You can tell me that when you can answer my questions and I can do something else for the time being. You can also make out time somehow if you are busy.

REPLY – “You are…

1.1. Talking out of your ass

2.2. Not showing your face “

COUNTER REPLY –

1. Please back up your claim with some sufficient evidence that I am talking like that since you claim to be rationalist.

2. It is my discretion that I want to show my face or not and showing the face was not the debate topic was not that who should show their face and who should not. I do not think so that for this debate that we need to show our faces.

3. Again you are typing those things which are off-topic.

REPLY – “So I think the jury is in on who’s the “foolish coward” over here is.”

COUNTER REPLY -You have made yourself the defense and prosecution lawyer, jury and the judge so obviously you are going to decide on your behalf only that who the “foolish coward” is. Let the third party decide that.REPLY – “You got that last bit right.”

COUNTER REPLY -Thanks, at least something you found it to be right.

REPLY – “When you say you’re not giving a damn, you ARE giving a damn.”

COUNTER REPLY -Sorry, but many of those irrational guys do not even answer back whom you never tried to make them rational through your organization in other fields but only tried to clean the superstitious beliefs from their minds.

REPLY – “Listen here, kid. “

COUNTER REPLY -Ok, speak provided you have a genuine reason for your statements.

REPLY – “You are way too young and naïve to mess around with rationalists. You’re just too young and have a lot to learn and totally sound like a kid. Have you even learnt how to masturbate yet? You have a looooooong way to go before you can even BEGIN to approach a rationalist. “

COUNTER REPLY –

1. When you say that youngsters cannot mess around with guys like you it itself proves that you are irrational. You seem to be to haughty about your age and let me tell you that even I agree that kids younger than me have extra knowledge such that I even take advice from them and learn from them.

2. I am not going to comment on that what I learnt which you asked not because that is too derogatory and off-topic for the debate and even if you need the answer then my answer is that I do not know that what that term means other than that it is something derogatory.

3. Pls explain the looooooong way and how far I am from that looooooong way not to me but to the judge of this debate as you may think that I am stupid and pls back it up with some proof if you have guts.

REPLY – “Trust me, we people are bad-ass and will pulverize anyone who dares disrespect science.”

COUNTER REPLY –

1. Acha, to apne miya mituh?

2. You could not even prove the law of gravitation then how can you baselessly claim that you are concerned about science when you do not know even the basics of it? I think that the person deciding this debate has known that since you do not know much of science as in one question, you have yourself said that I should go and ask someone who has knowledge of physics and in another question you said that you do not know the answer and you are admitting to it, how can you protect science?

3. So, since you are accepting that you do not know much about science, how do you claim that everything in science is proven and it is the way you think it is?

REPLY – “This battle has been going on for thousands of years and science has always won and religion has suffered nothing but humiliating defeats again and again and again. Religion is just a convenient lie. When people say they favor religion over science, what they’re in fact saying is, “We give up. Our brains haven’t evolved to that level yet. This whole shit about gravity and molecular attraction and genetics and evolution is way too advanced for us, so we’ll just stick to the same folk tales that Neanderthal food gatherers made up in their attempts to demystify the wonderful world around us.””

COUNTER REPLY –

1. Again, another off-topic statement. The topic of the debate was not or was not just about science and religion. It was about and also about that why you guys do not show your manhood in other areas also?

2. WHY ARE YOU JUST POINTING FINGERS AGAINST RELIGION? Why you people do not show some excitement and manhood towards government rules, postulates in science and human behavior other than his belief in superstition like for example, the irrational behavior of a teacher in a classroom who may beat up all students in her class if a prank is done on her by breaking her chair’s leg and making her fall when nobody accepts that he did the prank?

3. If you have the guts, then try and defeat the government rules, the postulates in science and some human behavior which are made unscientifically and irrationally again and again. Do not just show your manhood and excitement just towards weak and obvious cases like religion by giving all types of criticism that is a lie because nothing in religion has been completely proved or disproved.

4. Religion can be set aside as for those want to follow can follow and those who do not and form rationalist organization should first rationalize their own scientific areas, those government rules and some type of human behavior in his official life which have nothing to do with superstitious but his irrational behavior.

Remember, when you point one finger against the other person, the other three fingers point against you criticizing you thrice. Therefore, these three criticisms are:

1. You should show your manhood and excitement towards scientific postulates also which have been accepted by science and request the patent offices to not to accept postulates.

2. You should show your manhood and excitement towards those government rules also which have been made irrationally.

3. You should show your manhood and excitement those human behaviors which have nothing to do with religion but are irrational on other areas.

a. For example, in your own south India, in your neighboring state that chief minister showed extra courage and irrationality by trying to be extra fast and ordering the pilot to fly in bad weather which led to the chopper crash and his and other remaining occupant’s death. More irrationality was that many people from that state committed suicide on hearing that news which made me hold my belly rather than my eyes. ROFL! HAHAHA! Couldn’t stop holding it right now also when I got reminded of it.

As regards the last statement which you put the words forcibly on those people who favor religion over science when we do not even know that weather people have really said that or not, I would like to add that you had yourself said in your previous questions which I am reminding you again of that you do not know that part of science and I should ask some knowledgeable person.

Therefore, you are accepting your own defeat by perhaps saying,”The part of physics or science which you have mentioned is beyond my understanding and I do not have the balls to face it. I neither can prove nor disprove any postulate in science or challenge any government rules made irrationally or change the other irrational human behaviors because I do not have the balls to do so. So, I would stick to just criticizing religion which is the easiest way and a soft target.” So, why do you just fight against religion? IS THAT ALL YOU GUYS CAN DO?

REPLY - So log off and get to your books and study! You can start with English because you spellings are horrible and your grammar sucks! I clicked on MS-Word spell check and my processor almost burned out.

COUNTER REPLY –Thanks for advising me about what to do but if I show my manhood then I show it not just on books but to maximum places I can and especially if I form an organization or I am a member of an organization which claims to be a rationalist. As regards my English:

1. Let the judge also decide that how many errors where there by copying and pasting it to his own MS-word.

2. I had made a few errors but not that much which you are claiming to be. That was also because:

a. I was typing this letter in Facebook which had no spell-check. I bet that if you were typing without spell check then you would have made more mistakes than me.

b. I was using UK English and MS-words are probably US English based so the few errors are also because both the country’s English are slightly different.

3. If I had made any error in English or grammar, then you should have specified that as you claim to be a rationalist. For e.g. I may point out YOUR ERROR in grammar of your reply -> “Someone so stupid that he can’t even understand the simple concept of cohesion?” When I entered this in my MS-Word then it was underlined as a grammatical error. As I said, when you point finger against someone, the other three point against you. It should have been -> Someone can be so stupid that he can’t even understand the simple concept of cohesion? You get it? It should have been “Someone CAN BE so stupid” rather than “Someone so stupid”. Did you specify any mistake of mine like this since you claim to be a rationalist?

4. The reason given for your processor burning out also proves that how rational you are as processor can burn out due to many reasons and you did not investigate properly but straight away reached to a conclusion.

REPLY - And yeah, real smart move leaving your e-mail for all to see. I’ve XXXed it over here, but I know who you are where you live and where you work and I even know what you look like. And as if that’s not enough, you’ve even left your initials to confirm your identity. Have a nice day.

COUNTER REPLY –

1. I did not know that you are going to publish this on your blog. Hence, I gave the e-mail address if you were unable to reply back directly through Facebook.

2. Again you made a baseless allegation as I did not want everyone to see because I already stated that I did not know that you are going to publish it on your blog which proves your rationality.

3. It is good that you hid it but does not matter as that is not my phone number or address and I can block senders with the special button.

4. It seems that you did try to find out who I am as I went through my orkut profile also and you did come there. If you know who I am, where I live, where I work and what I look like then pls do tell me privately via mail.

5. Yes the initials are a big clue as to who I am and that how many contacts I have in Facebook. All the best for your future.

To conclude, I want to say that if you think that you are really smart then you would surely reply to my letter, else like a foolish coward you would accept to your mistakes that you have lost to me and that too to in front of everyone in your blog. YOUR NON-REPLY WOULD ALSO AMOUNT TO DEFEAT. I doubt that you would reply back because:

a. You have replied back with very short letter

b. You refused to answer or even comment on one question

c. You have missed out several points to answer them.

I already stated that what would be the consequences if you accept your defeat against me and most importantly it would prove that you are not a true rationalist but a foolish coward who shows his daring only on weak and obvious cases like religion. Also, you are accepting that science also contains many postulates and theories which are unproved. …And many more etc etc.

If you are willing to debate further then please do reply to all the points. If you are replying then pls reply ASAP as you are still brave and no need to read further. All the best.

If however, you choose to accept your defeat and not to reply then all the best for your future but this incident you shall always remember throughout your entire life no matter whatever happens in future that you despite your claim of being a rationalist you could not debate with a person and defend your science. ROFL! All the best for your future.

———————-WHEW END———————–

NOW SOMETHING FOR THE JUDGES OR OTHERS WHO ARE VIEWING THIS POST, PLS DECIDE IT FOR YOURSELF THAT WHO HAS WON THIS DEBATE AND IS THIS GUY REALLY A RATIONALIST OR NOT. THIS GUY REFUSED TO GIVE BACK ANY FURTHER REPLIES DESPITE HIS CLAIM THAT HE CAN ANSWER ALL MY QUESTIONS AND THAT HE IS A RATIONALIST!!! ROFL!YOU ARE ALSO FREE TO GIVE YOUR OTHER COMMENTS. PLS DO POST YOUR COMMENTS IF U HAVE READ THE WHOLE POST.

HOWEVER, REMAINING IS UPTO YOU AND IF THERE ARE NO OR INSUFFICIENT REPLIES TO THIS THEN I WILL POST IT SOMEWHERE ELSE ALSO AND I MUST SAY TO YOU THAT ALL THE BEST FOR YOUR FUTURE. I CAN ALSO SEND YOU THE WHOLE REPLY IN A MS-WORD SAVED BY ME IF YOU ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY IN READING THIS.